And you support shooting him while he is on the ground with plainly nothing in his hands?
I support shooting him no matter where he is or what he's doing if a. He has committed a crime and/or b. He is/has resisted or rum from the police.
The police cannot take the most incredibly small amount of risk in order to save someone's life?
It's not their job to save him. So says the SCOTUS.
I think the SCOTUS would disagree with you:
And you support shooting him while he is on the ground with plainly nothing in his hands?
I support shooting him no matter where he is or what he's doing if a. He has committed a crime and/or b. He is/has resisted or rum from the police.
The police cannot take the most incredibly small amount of risk in order to save someone's life?
It's not their job to save him. So says the SCOTUS.
When it comes to the use of deadly force against someone who is running from police, the SCOTUS would disagree with you.
Generally, the police have no no right to shot a suspect who is fleeing to avoid arrest. There is an exception only for those suspects who are consider dangerous felons, defined as those who have inflicted or threatened to cause serious bodily injury or death. In the case of Tennessee v. Garner the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) reviewed a Tennessee law which allowed the police to use deadly force to prevent the escape of non-dangerous suspects The particular case involved a man who was suspected of burglarizing a home. The following are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision:
“The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”
“While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect - young, slight, and unarmed - posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous.”.
“The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.”
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.
In one case previously discussed on this forum, on April 4, 2015, 50-year old Walter Scott was pulled over by Officer Slager for a broken tail light. There is no video of the initial encounter between Slager and Scott, but it was reported that Scott offered resistance and there was a minor scuffle between the two (neither Slager or Scott had any visible injuries). When Slager pulled out his taser Scott managed to wrestle it away from him. It was also reported that Scott fired the taser at Slager but missed. There was a video taken by an observer but it begins showing Scott running away from the scene and Slager shooting him in the back.
The question is: did Slager have the right to use deadly force to prevent Scott's escape? I contend he did not. The police can use deadly force against a fleeing suspect only if the suspect is a dangerous felon. This means that the suspect has either inflicted or threatened to inflict serious bodily harm or death. Scott was not a dangerous felon by any stretch of the imagination. A minor scuffle with a policeman certainly does not make Scott a dangerous felon. The attempt to tase the officer certainly does not qualify because a taser is considered safe (many people have volunteered to be tased just to know what it feels like) and is routinely used in situations where deadly force would not be allowed.
A federal grand jury apparently agreed with my assessment and Officer Slager was indicted on May 11, 2016. According to the following link:
“
The federal grand jury's indictment charged Slager with deprivation of rights under the color of the law, use of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime and obstruction of justice.
“The deprivation of rights charge is a death penalty offense, but the federal prosecutor's office has no interest in pursuing it, Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric Klumb said.”
Walter Scott shooting death: Grand jury indicts ex-officer - CNN.com
From everything I have read, Scott had a bench warrant issued for non-payment of child support and was afraid of going to jail. He resisted arrest using force that could not possibly constitute the use or threatened use of serious bodily injury or death. I fully expect Slager to be convicted or enter into a plea bargain.
CONCLUSION A policeman can use deadly force if – at the time such force is used - the policeman has a reasonable belief that it is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or an innocent third party; however, once the threat no longer exists the use of deadly force must cease (this same right also applies to private citizens). A policeman cannot use deadly force to prevent a suspect from escaping unless the suspect is considered to be a dangerous felon.
Taking a life is a very serious matter and is only justified in extraordinary cases to prevent innocent people from suffering serious injury or death.
